Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

This study, on “the carcinogenic risk associated with the intake of” various meats, estimated the risk was so great that we may not want to feed beef, pork, or chicken to kids more than like five times a month. This was in Europe, where lamb contamination is a particular problem. In the United States, if there was any standout, it would be chicken and PBDEs (flame-retardant chemicals)—not only compared to other meats, but other countries. U.S. chickens are like 10-20 times more contaminated than the samples taken from other countries that have been tested—though diet is not the only source of exposure, as those eating vegetarian have only about 25% lower levels in their bloodstream than those eating meat, though a large proportion of the levels in omnivores may be from chicken.

For other chemicals, diet may play a larger role. Studies of the “pollutants in [the] breast milk of vegetarians” dating back over 30 years have found the average vegetarian levels of some pollutants were “only 1 to 2 per cent as high as the [national] average.” In fact, for the six out of seven pollutants they looked at, there wasn’t even overlap in the range of scores; “the highest vegetarian value was lower than the lowest value obtained in the [general population].” This is presumed to be because these pollutants concentrate up the food chain. So, by eating lots from all the way down the food chain—plants—those eating vegetarian may “have an edge.”

For example, dioxins. “Meat, fish, and dairy are believed to contribute almost all of the dioxin body [exposure].” And, indeed, if you look at those eating strictly plant-based diets, they may only have about a third of the levels of dioxins and PCBs, or even less than a fifth, circulating throughout their bodies.

This study really struck me. “India has been facing a major problem of treating its [millions of pounds of electronic] waste” every year. And, these poor workers at these electronic waste recycling plants can be exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals, ending up with this kind of concentration of PCBs in their bloodstream—nearly twice as high as those living about 250 miles away along the coast. But these were non-vegetarian workers at the waste plant. The PCB levels of the vegetarians working at the same plant was even lower.

The problem with these cross-sectional studies is that we can’t single out the diet. Maybe vegetarians have other lifestyle behaviors that protect them. You don’t know until you put it to the test. Change people’s diets and see what happens.

That’s hard to do with persistent pollutants like PCBs, which may take literally decades to detoxify from the body. But, we can get rid of heavy metals, like mercury, in a matter of months. And, indeed, within three months of “the exclusion of meat, poultry, fish and eggs” from their diets, there was a significant drop in the levels of toxic heavy metals in their bodies, including mercury, cadmium, and lead.” Up to about a 30% drop within three months.

What if we just stick to organic meat? Certified organic meat comes from” livestock [that are] fed with organically produced feed that is free of pesticides and animal by-products,” by law. Therefore, one would assume “that there should be [a] lower accumulation of chemical residues.” However, on a practical level, there were simply “no studies on the chemical residues’ content in organic meat”—until, now.

Researchers “acquired 76 samples of [different kinds of] meat, both organic and conventional, and “quantified their levels of contamination with 33 different carcinogenic [persistent organic pollutants].”

After all, “the ingestion of food contributes more than 90% to the total current exposure to these compounds, especially…food [of] animal origin.” “On the other hand, an increasing number of consumers” are choosing organic. In fact, “organic food production increased by 50% during the last decade.” So, are consumers of organic meat protected, or not?

Well, “no sample was completely free of carcinogenic contaminants,” which is to be expected, given how polluted our world is these days. But, what was surprising was that “the differences between organically and conventionally produced meats were minimal.” Furthermore, “the current pattern of meat consumption exceeded the maximum limits” either way.

“Strikingly, the consumption of organically produced meat [not only] does not appear to diminish this carcinogenic risk,” but was sometimes found to “be even higher.” Bottom line, sadly, is that the “[c]onsumption of organic meat does not diminish the carcinogenic potential associated with the intake of [these pollutants].”

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

This study, on “the carcinogenic risk associated with the intake of” various meats, estimated the risk was so great that we may not want to feed beef, pork, or chicken to kids more than like five times a month. This was in Europe, where lamb contamination is a particular problem. In the United States, if there was any standout, it would be chicken and PBDEs (flame-retardant chemicals)—not only compared to other meats, but other countries. U.S. chickens are like 10-20 times more contaminated than the samples taken from other countries that have been tested—though diet is not the only source of exposure, as those eating vegetarian have only about 25% lower levels in their bloodstream than those eating meat, though a large proportion of the levels in omnivores may be from chicken.

For other chemicals, diet may play a larger role. Studies of the “pollutants in [the] breast milk of vegetarians” dating back over 30 years have found the average vegetarian levels of some pollutants were “only 1 to 2 per cent as high as the [national] average.” In fact, for the six out of seven pollutants they looked at, there wasn’t even overlap in the range of scores; “the highest vegetarian value was lower than the lowest value obtained in the [general population].” This is presumed to be because these pollutants concentrate up the food chain. So, by eating lots from all the way down the food chain—plants—those eating vegetarian may “have an edge.”

For example, dioxins. “Meat, fish, and dairy are believed to contribute almost all of the dioxin body [exposure].” And, indeed, if you look at those eating strictly plant-based diets, they may only have about a third of the levels of dioxins and PCBs, or even less than a fifth, circulating throughout their bodies.

This study really struck me. “India has been facing a major problem of treating its [millions of pounds of electronic] waste” every year. And, these poor workers at these electronic waste recycling plants can be exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals, ending up with this kind of concentration of PCBs in their bloodstream—nearly twice as high as those living about 250 miles away along the coast. But these were non-vegetarian workers at the waste plant. The PCB levels of the vegetarians working at the same plant was even lower.

The problem with these cross-sectional studies is that we can’t single out the diet. Maybe vegetarians have other lifestyle behaviors that protect them. You don’t know until you put it to the test. Change people’s diets and see what happens.

That’s hard to do with persistent pollutants like PCBs, which may take literally decades to detoxify from the body. But, we can get rid of heavy metals, like mercury, in a matter of months. And, indeed, within three months of “the exclusion of meat, poultry, fish and eggs” from their diets, there was a significant drop in the levels of toxic heavy metals in their bodies, including mercury, cadmium, and lead.” Up to about a 30% drop within three months.

What if we just stick to organic meat? Certified organic meat comes from” livestock [that are] fed with organically produced feed that is free of pesticides and animal by-products,” by law. Therefore, one would assume “that there should be [a] lower accumulation of chemical residues.” However, on a practical level, there were simply “no studies on the chemical residues’ content in organic meat”—until, now.

Researchers “acquired 76 samples of [different kinds of] meat, both organic and conventional, and “quantified their levels of contamination with 33 different carcinogenic [persistent organic pollutants].”

After all, “the ingestion of food contributes more than 90% to the total current exposure to these compounds, especially…food [of] animal origin.” “On the other hand, an increasing number of consumers” are choosing organic. In fact, “organic food production increased by 50% during the last decade.” So, are consumers of organic meat protected, or not?

Well, “no sample was completely free of carcinogenic contaminants,” which is to be expected, given how polluted our world is these days. But, what was surprising was that “the differences between organically and conventionally produced meats were minimal.” Furthermore, “the current pattern of meat consumption exceeded the maximum limits” either way.

“Strikingly, the consumption of organically produced meat [not only] does not appear to diminish this carcinogenic risk,” but was sometimes found to “be even higher.” Bottom line, sadly, is that the “[c]onsumption of organic meat does not diminish the carcinogenic potential associated with the intake of [these pollutants].”

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here. And remember, captions for all videos are available in several languages. To find yours, click on the settings wheel on the lower-right of the video and then “Subtitles/CC.”

128 responses to “Is Organic Meat Less Carcinogenic?”

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

I just love it! All those supposed smart people who think they can eat “healthy” meat, chicken, etc. A dead, rotting cow is still a dead, rotting cow no matter what it ate. Real men don’t eat meat. Real men are too smart. Thank you Dr. Greger for another great report.

Aloha,
I think a greater issue to think about is that animals being fed organically must still be getting POP’s from the soil that the feed is being grown on. How else would these animals get such high levels?

Things like dioxins are just present about everywhere. A cow fed organically there would be no chemicals added to the feed but really dioxins are never added to feed nor normally present in the chemicals they add to fertilizers and such. They are now outlawed.
Our present is so polluted they present in all places in multiple forms. Cows eat and concentrate. Fish in waters do the same. Even wild fish or grown fish one finds contaminants. It is the tendency to concentrate.

You’ll have a hard time convincing anyone to listen to you with an attitude like that, Chuck. Judging by your projection, I presume you’ve NEVER eaten meat in your life?

‘Real men’ don’t gloat or ridicule either, and they certainly don’t have the kind of complex that compels them to validate their manliness with silly statements.

It’d be nice if the comments here remained on topic and those who want to take part in the ‘us vs them’ nonsense be advised to head over to the youtube comments. The last thing we need is fodder for Nutritionfacts being lumped in with the perception of overzelous Veganism, as the facts presented here speak for themselves.

The paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.032 – unfortunately, behind a paywall – which links to the paper discussed in the video, states the following: ” (…) meat and meat products are not the main food group responsible of the dietary exposure to carcinogenic (or probably carcinogenic) environmental organic pollutants.” Not sure what to make of it. Can someone more knowledgeable comment on this?

In the documentary, “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out” they talked about how Okinawa had the highest percentage of smokers and had polluted air, but they didn’t start having Cancer until they started eating animal products.

They said that the smoking is Carcinogenic, but plant eaters have a protection.

Less carcinogenic as in a little less pregnant? :-) To me, even organic meat tastes so…..game-y, so dead animal-y. Yuck. And then there are the visuals of the poor thing taking its last breath just before it’s slaughtered. Seems to me a thing either IS healthy for us or it ain’t. “Sort of,” “just a little” isn’t good enough. If it’s known to be a full-blown “ain’t,” pass on by. (Of course it’s true so-called health pundits rarely agree on what’s good for us.)

Yeah Right, I laugh my head off at “tastes so dead animal-y” I grew up eating a lot of dead animals, but by my early 20’s I couldn’t handle the thought of eating dead animals. I could handle eating eggs if they were hidden in a baked good and it was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t even think about it” type of thing.

It has been so easy making my dog go vegan ASAP, trying to save his life.

I tried to follow Keto logic, but I couldn’t do it, and I couldn’t deal with the feeding him raw meat and I seriously couldn’t handle figuring out how to cook it without adding carcinogens.

Now, I have that same emotional response to oil and it tastes so oily and greasy and yucky.

“And then there are the visuals of the poor thing taking its last breath just before it’s slaughtered.”

It’s actually less pretty than even that. Whether in a slaughterhouse or one of those rare “kill on the site” scenarios, the last struggles and gasps are actually during slaughter, not right before it – it’s a longer and more gruesome process than people typically think.

No, I have not witnessed it in person, I’m grateful for those who go undercover but I couldn’t handle it or stop myself from intervening. I have however forced myself to watch undercover footage, too much to count from documentaries like Earthlings to factory farms to “family farms” to “hunting” videos to slaughterhouses to on site slaughters to even promotional stuff where they’re actually boasting how “humane” they are yet the footage is still cut and what isn’t is still horrific. I forced myself to watch so that I would know so that I could tell others. And I did talk to people who have witnessed it in person, such as those who grew up on a farm or who had a parent who worked at a slaughterhouse.

What is the absolute increase risk estimate. You eat organic meat or you are vegan? Not the relative risk but the absolute risk…. waiting for your reply. You do need to answer this question. People need to make risk based decisions on absolute and relative risks… everything transparent… not hide the ball. If you hide the ball, you actually discredit plant based science. We need to be transparent. And that’s just on Momma’s side of the family. ;)

There are at least 4 or 5 explanations of why red meat raises cancer risk. 1) added homones/antibiotics, 2) creation of PAHs and HCAs, 3) curing of meats (nitrates), 4) accumulation of POPs (persistant organic pollutants), and 5) animal protein raising IGF-1 and number 5 is important and the one of the 5 that cannot be controlled. Yet, we have no populations data or put it to the test for everyone who has controlled 1-4. . And that’s just on Momma’s side of the family. ;)

It is likely also a matter of degree, not just “eat organic meat vs vegan”. About a year ago, after being 100% vegan for almost 7 years (this time) and at age 68 when this sort of issue might be more relevant, I noticed I was not feeling so well, very slow recovery from exercise, muscle soreness all the time even couple days of rest after only moderate work out, waking up tired in the morning, increasing joint pain. Long story how I got there but I ended up trying adding a little animal sourced protein, sardines and grass fed elk and buffalo. Within a couple weeks I felt much better and over a month or two, all those issues resolved. Though I don’t have vegan baseline IGF-1 tested, I did finally get around to testing after about 4 or 5 month of eating 2 oz/day of the above meats. Tested at 123 and per info I have been able to find online, that puts me about mid range for healthy in my age group. Too low IGF-1 can cause–Decreased bone density, Fatigue, Adverse lipid changes, and Reduced exercise tolerance. There are some WFPB doctors who are adamant that one should be vegan. There are others that say a small percentage of people need some animal protein to thrive. Also, with age, a bit higher protein intake may well be beneficial. Clearly there is a trade off between longevity vs “performance” and how well one feels. My bet would be that “the sweet spot” varies with the individual.

Disagree. Except for B12, we don’t need to eat meat. And even that B12 is from soil, not meat itself. As for protein, you only need it at 5% of your daily calories, according to the WHO. For ex., assume 1500 cal./day total, and that’s just 75 calories a day of protein.

No offense to McDougall, he has done some great work and has had health problems, but if I wanted to look like him and perhaps live a little longer as well…I would just cut my nads off.
Little used nowadays I expect I could, but really I think I may just keep them, and my deadlifting as well.

Well take a look at all the docs on our side the traditional guys giving out on WFPB.
And then tell me with a straight face each and every one of them does not look like they had their nads removed some time ago….

If a particular diet was found a womans diet to make you live till 110 as opposed to 100 but it made a woman positively revolting to appearance and function would you use that diet?
I’d say most would not.
Sorry, muscle depending on circle one frequents, may be what a man is a bit about. Without it you remain one, but a one that is a little missing a thing. Like maybe a friend is a nice guy and all but he lost a arm or leg. Nice guy but do you want to be like him….sad but truthfully you do not. Man but he is missing a thing or two.

If you have to look like that to be vegan it will remain largly done by women and only 3 percent will do it.
Fortunately it is not and you tube is filled with young peoples men and women who have plenty of muscle but are vegan.

Seeing a doc a bit ago, 100 they pointed to him..oh look, great, see he can still do something. All bent over with obvious osteoperosis I can yes, see him doing a thing I could do when I was 6, mowing a lawn with a push assist mower.

I hope if I live that long to do a bit more and not have osteoperosis. If I die as 95 opposed to 100 but remain free from it and reasonably capable physically…I am all for it. 60 as opposed to 100 no. But I think vegan with some attention to diet one does not have to risk the 60. It is just healthier excepting only if it is mainly junk and processed.

So there may be a difference in how we see this thing. I like my nads I don’t want to chop them off through diet.

It’s not just being skinny. UFC other than the heavyweights about all are real skinny, 6 ft 1 or something fighting at `155 not unusual. It is skinny with muscle.

You want to live to 110 I guess that look is it. But part of this thing is I think morality aside, is not to be so weak you are in a nursing home or wheelchair or walker…..to live longer but able healthy.
These guys looks like a strong wind would blow them over. Veganism would be doomed for men if that was it..very luckily it is not.

Demonizing calcium plant protein salt, the only exercise being real real slow and steady for a long long time, and I think that is where it gets you.

And women in todays world want to be strong as well, natural seems natural to be that way strong as opposed to weak, more and more. CrossFit bunches of women in it very popular.

as to this….”, so are your nads…. you know….still functional? *wink wink*

I use buddhist means to devolve this reality and prevent rebirth. Part of that is tantra involved with this thing. It is not to provide pleasure, that is western nonsense of misunderstanding. It is to understand oneself though it. Once done, spent with it in that fashion, the act itself becomes less than appealing. Male or woman, it just does not seem to attract at all that way. And it is not a age thing.

The attraction is a drunkenness of a sort. Once removed from that, it appears in the most, sort of silly. And there are way better easier means to provide the quiet mind it incites, which really is the thing we are seeking. Which is why it is provided…to incite us that way.
A thing we want which is without the word, which the Christians said in their bible was god. We seek that the quiet. But we must not squash our mind to get it through a drug or meditation or this or that. We must understand our way to it. Sex it does not last but a minute that thing.

Things of drunkenness even poisons may be indulged to self learn. but once a particular is learned, there is no sense in continuing the indulgence. Habit may persist it, but even that goes if the impel of thought on it is devolved.
I spent many times in dangerous and haunted places to that same aim…to learn my mind. But it is always all of it to learn that. So I will not rebirth this heinous place again.

If you only need 1500 cal a day your not really working out or exercising, and 75 calories of protein may meet your needs, if your not working out and are a tiny person. But I’m small my coloric intake is close to 3000-3500 a day. Think your making a lot of assumptions in your justification.

GL…I happen to agree with you basic thoughts on this though I do say they are personal, as I cannot just point to study and say this proves it.
I also am concerned with performance. My hobbies are all of the very involved physical. I now have some MMA mixed in with trail running and powerlifting training as well. A 1.5 hour back deadlift workout yesterday. It is what I really like, to do these things. And I am in your general age category. I have been vegan since 1990.

But as regards IGF-1, it is available from source soy. IN large quantities it presents. Which is why some on this side, the WFPB will disallow soy in their diet plans. Their whole concern is prevention of cancer heart disease and the like and a very long life. I actually had someone here in comment suggest to another, why would you possibly want to consume more than 30 grams of protein a day…..nothing is cared by some about things like muscle mass. I would simply not care to live that way.

A supplement of soy protein by my guess, varying how much to take by effect, fits the bill by my read. Of course it must be good quality soy protein well tested for contaminants.
So if you were vegan for reasons of considered harm you may want to consider a option may be available to continue in that.
I have aches and pains and this and that but performance wise, I find they do not hinder it. Today I run for a hour at altitude of 7200 feet up and down hills on trails in the National forest. If the storms prevent that I will do abs, do some other things, and kick and punch the heavy bag for a total time of a hour or so. Probably I will cut some wood with a chain saw or do some other around the house stuff.

Allowing time for recovery is very important as one ages I think. Clarence Bass, a local fitness guy out here, is only working out once a week…but he is 80. Performance wise it seems to work for him, he is totally capeable and equal in exercise probably to one about 50.. It seems that is the eventual direction as one ages. He eats eggs all sorts of things he is not vegan but as to exercise he has it down.

Though I only take one or two days off from formal exercise a week and usually do things like lay concrete when I do not or cut wood.

ron in New Mexico,
Interesting entry. I am 70, almost 71. I found your post interesting because like you I engage in physical activity in which you usually find younger men. What you do has a higher degree of physical intensity than what I do: 3 days a week WingTsun Kung fu with men in their 20s-50s, 2 days a week ‘power-flow Yoga’ and weights, 1day a week 25 minutes of cardio HIIT on the elliptical (eight 30 second all out sprints followed by 90 seconds of jogging/recovery),and then an hour of heavy weights, day off is usually bicycle riding, hiking and/or house stuff. Your workout intensity certainly exceeds mine. I’m not as fast as I used to be; my reflexes are not as quick as they used to be; my endurance is not what it used to be, but I can still hold my own with men 1/2 my age. That’s why I found your post interesting and I certainly have found that recovery time becomes more and more important as I age, and it is slower as I age. Finding a good quality plant based protein w/o contaminants is a challenge. Most seem to be whey based. Dr. Fuhrman and others, while preferring a vegan diet, suggest that a small amount of animal product as a condiment which equals less 5% or less of your daily calories may be OK. I am looking for ways to speed my recovery time and increase my performance/energy so I appreciated your input/post.

I’m a 71. yr old vegan who exercises a lot, including HIIT (Norwegian 4 x 4) and other cardio, as well as weights 2-3 x per week. I exercise everyday, alternating high and low intensity. My resting heart rate is below 50 and my calculated VO2max is that of someone half my age. Although I follow pretty closely what Dr Fuhrman says, I don’t see why one would need any animal protein, given that soy protein is of comparable quality (meaning its essential amino acid profile is similar to animal protein).
My “go to” protein source is tempeh. One serving of tempeh can provide 16 grams of highly digestible, “high quality” protein.

Well BH your exercise regime sound pretty equal to mine. Funny thing about recovery, years ago heart and lungs would recover automatically the limitation was always on skeletal muscle. Now I find they do indeed need recovery. If I do cardio for time I know my cardio will be depressed the day after, not due to skeletal muscle breakdown but cardiac lung. Things change as we age. I can to the inverse…… retain strength movements deadlift and such poundage even though the workout are significantly longer in between. Back in the day I lost strength with a week between squats deadlift or bench…now not at all, 2 or 3 I notice no loss..

I do vegan as I have moral concerns, so admittedly am biased. I always thought a bit of meat was the healthier diet if one was talking strictly health and I told peoples that.
But now no, I no longer say, that. I am to far ahead of meat eaters, they are just largely falling apart. Clarence Bass that fitness guy I mention he eats eggs dairy and meat at bit but a lot of plant based stuff…he has been on statins for 20 years and now had to get off them due to side effects. He did steroids years ago and has had prostate cancer. 2 hip replacements.

Add things like that up and I find no performance benefit. If injured or sick you simply cannot work out.

I cheat the thing now. I want recovery now, I just went for a jog with dog..I will go to antioxidant berries in hibiscus tea to rehydrate and I ate some fake chicken meat for protein, the thing is almost all protein. And now my snack hummus of lentils or garbanzo beans and chips mostly protein.
Broccoli sprouts I think I find a direct effect by some healthy result. Under stress for this or that, them as snack really helps me feel good. Loss of sleep whatever. So I cheat…. younger I think it did not matter.

I eat protein with all my meals and almost all my snacks. Even my smoothie in the morn with all sorts of berries and kale spinach broccoli orange peel and all….I still put in not just flax but soy protein powder.
But really nowadays the fake meats burgers and this and that, they generally come from varied protein source. It may be wheat or soy or something else. So perhaps it is the variance that works I don’t know but I little doubt I get enough of it. I think our side is demonizing protein by lumping it in with meat dairy protein which has negatives. A overreach by my read.

The IGF-1 in soy is enough to make some of these WFPBed docs disavow soy. So there must be something to it. Am I worried about IGF-1 at those minute levels…not really. Bodybuilders take overt gross amounts of growth hormones daily for years and years and cancer, not so much heart problems are the thing. Some risk but really really small at levels one may find in soy. And likely soy componants protect against cancer anyway.

I again cheat it. I had the peeing at night thing for a decade or so, which indicates a enlargement of prostate which can lead to prostate cancer…so I started putting raw pumpkin seeds in my salad at night….and a month or so later and now for a year or so…it disappeared, a thing most consider inevitable….I cheated it away. Would it work if I ate meat..my guess is no. It healed it so completely I can only imagine all would do it. It must be a todo with being vegan for so long. I literally never get up at night. Gone completely. Comedians Joey Diaz I heard him yesterday talking on how it is a automatic that thing…..it is for them.
So I think this vegan WFPB compounds. I do whole foods plant based but with the addition of lots of protein. Salt I probably eat a tenth of the average American but here they would say that is way to much. Doing this thing sweating, all last week 95F plus with jogs, I don’t bother the salt.

A little meat my guess is the rest would not work so well..but I admit it is a guess. I am so certain in it I will not really bother to research it.
Protein is the thing as far as performance goes. I do add the regular supplements vegans need to though.
A good quality soy, not cheap junk they sell.

For the young, vegan in athletes has become a bit of a thing. Actually they had a documentary movie out at sundance this past year.
Not vegan with meat, but mainly WFPB with protein from plant source.
All vegan athletes always talk about the need for more/much protein.
McDougall guys like that, will have no part of it. But look at the guy, look at Dr Greger, no offense but who wants to lift like I know they can lift?
I am no strong man competitor but I do want some strength especially as I age.
More important as I age as I see it. Give a few years to be strong in my last years…yes that could be the bargain and one I accept. I need to live when I get old and live for me is doing roughly what I did all my life and/or more.

MMA stuff(I just do the striking parts) is really sort of new to me for focus. Some basics years ago but this is training. Grappeling I think would force injury. I could not do the kicks I do now five years ago or ever. I kicked yesterday(not on the bag) way over my head, never before.

That is living for me..new stuff better than ever..love it really. Meat eaters…no sorry they are f^%ed….finished at my age and older, and usually many years younger.Sorry for them but it is fact.

RonInNM, I’m with you. It’s not just loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia) but also aerobic capacity (VO2 max). Master athletes as a group are much, much healthier than sedentary peers. And it’s not just about the body. Exercise also powers the brain, stimulating BDNF (brain derived neural factor) and improving blood flow. Exercisers literally maintain larger brains than sedentaries. The puny exercise guidelines given by the government or other organizations are really jokes. It’s really telling people to become weak: compared to the typical, even weaker and sicker couch potatoes, those conveninet exercise guidelines would keep one ahead of **that** pack, but that isn’t saying much.

Here’s a very nice overview by Dr. Fuhrman on protein for muscle-building, and the effect of soy protein on circulating IGF-1. Note that weight training itself stimulates muscles to make their own IGF-1. One should not overdo soy, neither is it necessary, but on the other hand. one should not be scared of eating it either. Since older people often have low circulating IGF-1, I’d guess that eating a reasonable amount of soy everyday is fine. However, eating a mix of beans/legumes, nuts/seeds and whole grains is likely the wisest choice.

“Healthier Alternatives to Support Muscle Growth
Instead of micronutrient-poor protein powders, whole food sources of protein are the best choice. For blending into shakes and smoothies, I recommend high-protein plant foods such as sunflower seeds, hemp seeds and Mediterranean pine nuts.

These same foods can be incorporated into post-workout meals, along with generous amounts of green vegetables, beans and intact whole grains (such as oats, quinoa and wild rice) that are rich in micronutrients as well as protein. For those that insist on using isolated protein powders, hemp, rice and pea proteins are better choices than soy protein, since their amino acid profiles are not as close to that of animal protein. “

Which speaks to DHA in fish oil showing in various study to be increasing in this or that negative effect that we may
reasonably assume is actually due to the contaminates present in the oils. All oils have them but some are better than others and all nowadays are considered below RAS levels. Which would not show in DHA from algae.

So is it the amino profile or other things found in meat….I say the other. And the soy componants are not completely removed with a powder
.One I have now, is 25G protein per s,, 29 mg’s of various isoflavones and saponins. The PCDDAS (digestability) score on this one is identical to any comparable egg white or casein protein source.
.
Is it the profile itself… the isolated amino or composit, or the thing that is source of that amino in study invariably dairy or meat..
Of course we could source soy from areas where leaded gas is normal perhaps and then be reading as well a thing of lead contamination not soy result. Or any other number of comparable alternates. ARe the scientists in study going to the extend of sourcing organic soy grown in the US….my guess is no.
As protein powders are now know to contain gross arsenic in them to mention but one.
So there is a degree of risk in all but as with creatine supplement the devil is all in the detail….a supplement may be found of Germanic process of manufacture which shows no contamination.

So we may find such things in plant base with attention to specifics to ally fears of contamination. Likely that is not present in meat fish or dairy sourced things, they are inherent to the substances themselves.

Sorry, but I think the claim that some people need some animal protein to thrive is insupportable. Why would animal protein be superior to that found in soy products, and in particular, tempeh? One serving (3 oz./84 grams) of the tempeh I eat (SoyBoy) has 16 grams of protein. The EAA profile of soy is very similar to animal protein, and highly digestible. I’m 71, a vegan and exercise a lot (weights, high intensity interval training, jogging/hiking), and so am concerned about sufficient protein for building muscle and tissue repair. I get a lot of protein (more than 1 g/kg body weight/day), including way more than the RDA of every EEA, I get this primarily from beans/legumes, nuts/seeds, and intact whole grains. I do not believe anyone needs “some animal protein” to thrive, if they are eating the right plant sources. If something is missing, I’d say it must be something else, perhaps fat (I get about 25% of my calories from fat).

I think it’s beyond apparent there is no hidden agenda with Dr. Greger. But if he becomes the leader of “Big Kale” one day and rules us all, I’ll admit I was wrong. Still, that doesn’t sound like it’d be so bad.

It gets old the same old same old.
I was seeing another guy posting all sorts of what he considered to be definitive science on another thread, to support all sorts of what appears nonsense. And I saw quite a few of his references…they seemed to reference psychiatry…I did not bother to check those as I checked some others that were completely bogus…but now I know where that came from.

So yes it gets old. Stay on their boards is my recommendation they exist aplenty. All can agree with one another this is largly WFPB.

I could never imagine going to a paleo board a atkins board a keto board or this board or that, and challenging their assumptive premesis….what would be the point?

It would indicate to me I had doubt in what I believed In, otherwise why do that?
I guess some Christians are impelled by their interpretations of their bible to spread the word it is a necessity. But diet this is not religion…if you think you are right stay on your boards and talk away with eachother.
If you have reasonable questions of course those are fielded and many come here daily with honest questions. But these others…..they must be a bit mad. Really there is no other reason why to try to convince others so ardently to your diet.

You never know really what will work with mad peoples, so they will stop bothering.
I was on a remote forest trail a bit ago jogging with my dog. That dog hated other dogs, probably abused before I got it., it was a stray.

So jogging along, I saw a woman with a dog unleashed. I yelled ahead please secure your dog, mine was on leach.
She ignore that and preceeded on. I pulled as far off the trail as possible and stopped. I repeated please secure your dog as she got closer, she responded….call the police then…..we were in the middle of a forest on a trail….
I said some rational things like I just don’t want a dog fight and this and that.

She ignored it all, her dog came to mine and of course they got in a bit of a fight. I yelled, the dog pulled back.
For some reason she in her insanity said…I am going to stay here in this spot until you go…she was already past me so there was no reason for that.
I know if you have a dog that may be vicious you cannot walk away from it, you must stay still. Walking away invites the attack..They think you prey that invites attack.
So reason tried this and that…I simply in the end said….you must be totally out of your friggin mind. Are you entirely crazy…it struck a chord, she immediately without a word turned around and headed down the trail with her dog still not leashed…

Point being with a unhinged person you never know what will work, the important thing is to stop them from bothering us or others with least harm.
Telling someone they are crazy is rarely a preferential thing but with mad peoples(no offense to them we are all a tiny bit that)….who knows what will work. Normal peoples calling them names incites them..clearly this person was not normal. And I had no other choice really.
Caught in that web of madness for a time stuck.

Fair call but I get irritated by individuals who reject the science simply because they don’t like it. The other point is that these people are indirectly killing others or at least damaging their health by promoting false claims and pseudoscientific beliefs. The fact that they are totally sincere doesn’t alter the facts. Some others may be in it largely for the money but Ede appears genuine in her beliefs.

As I believe I have mentioned before, somebody once claimed that Atkins (and his ilk) were responsble for more deaths than WW2 Then there is the untold suffering and cruelty that has been inflicted upon billions of living creatures by the meat and related industries. I think some degree of outrage and name calling is at least understandable.

Walter Willett is probably the worls’s leading authority on nutriton. As far as I know he is neither a ‘vegan’ nor a ‘vegetarian’ yet apparently he has said

Our Views
We seek solid scientific evidence for all healing practices, ancestral and modern, natural and pharmaceutical. All sources of evidence, from case studies to epidemiology to randomized clinical trials, should contribute to our judgment as physicians about the interventions that will most benefit our patients.http://ancestraldoctors.org

From page for Georgia Ede, MD

How did you first become interested in ancestral health?
In 2002, in my early 40’s, I developed a variety of perplexing health problems, including symptoms of fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, migraines, and IBS, that no doctor was able to help me with. Through months of trial and error, I discovered that the “healthy” diet I’d been eating for years was the problem. The diet I found that cured me of every single symptom was almost the complete opposite of the diet recommended by public health officials in the U.S. It is a very-low-carbohydrate, meat-based, high-fat, high-cholesterol, low -fiber, grain-free, legume-free, and dairy-free diet. I later stumbled upon Gary Taubes incredible book Good Calories, Bad Calories and the rest is history…
Do you have any favorite ancestral health resources?
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes Nutrition, Physical Degeneration by Weston Price, The Paleo Diet by Lorenhttp://ancestraldoctors.org/georgia-ede-md/

Dr J no offense but this is the problem I have with peoples like that explained in your second example.
People screw up their diet to every extend and form so badly they come down with not only disease but disease which may kill them within a very short period of time.
So they see the light and find a better thing. But this is compared to a choice of diet that nearly killed them and necessitated that…

And then we listen to their advice….no thanks. Give me someone who did not screw it up badly in the first go.
These people may stumble onto a better thing but really they screwed it up so badly the first time who knows if the second is a bit better but not really great at all.
A drinker of hard liquor may switch from that to beer and expound to no end the benefit of that. And they are not lying it is much better if one is a alcoholic. But we will find as to health abstinance from both is the ticket.
So in this…who knows if they are on the right track now….they are better than before that we know.
I would say they made such a bad go at it the first time likely they know not a thing and have lucked into the second. Their advice may not be so great to listen to.

This is the point. The woman is an MD but she apparently uncritcally believes Taubes . Doesn’t she do any fact-checking whatsoever? Apparently not, she just reads something she likes and then goes with it.

As an MD, I would have thought that Ede had the training and the responsibilty to check out such startling claims about the health effects of nutrients on health and the equally startling claims about the manipulation of the scientific evidence by a single individual. Especially when those conflicted with the evidence and position statements of professional medical associations and reports by expert scientific panels. Apparently she chose not to.

And none of her favourite resources include scientific publications or reports on nutrition and health, just popular books by a journalist, a dentist and an exercise physiologist.

ron in New Mexico, I posted quotes from the website I asked about; they don’t reflect my viewpoint. And the second paragraph is about Dr. Georgie Ede; she is providing the answers to the question.

TG, that is the problem with most MDs, I’ve found; you are in the minority who actually think critically, look for and at the evidence, and then evaluate it. Though we could perhaps attribute some of Dr. Ede’s ignorance about nutrition to the utter and complete lack of any nutrition education in medical school. (I’m not even convinced that most MDs have a solid science education.) Though I wonder what such courses would actually teach? I have some nutrition textbooks at home (personal interest); they are old now, so I might replace them. But mine were oriented toward consuming meat; I don’t recall any discussion of vegetarian or vegan or whole foods plant based diets.

And I wonder what her “healthy” diet was? I think that term has almost as many meanings as the people who claim it. Her “new and improved” diet sounds terrible: “a very-low-carbohydrate, meat-based, high-fat, high-cholesterol, low -fiber, grain-free, legume-free, and dairy-free diet” — the only good part about this diet is “dairy-free.” Unbelievable.

“In spring 2012, I completed a graduate course in nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health entitled “The Science of Human Nutrition”, taught by Dr. Frank Sacks and Dr. Clifford Lo.” http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/about-dr-ede/

Though her professional career was and still is as a psychiatrist. She adds “nutritional counseling” to help her patients. And she claims to have no problems and to take no meds — at the ripe old age of 52!! (same as my husband, at the ripe old age of 75!!)

Well, I could never eat the diet she recommends: it’s not sustainable; it’s terrible for the environment, the animals, and the workers; and it’s a major contributing factor to antibiotic resistance.

Absolutely. However, the one good thing about such diets is that they eliminate refined carbohydrates and processed foods in general.

In this respect, they may be superior to the standard Western diet which is high in those things. A bad diet is an improvement over a terribe diet I suppose.

But you would think that an MD cum nutritional counsellor (of course anybody can claim to be a nutritional counsellor) would at least have read the scientific report of the US Dietary Guidelines Adviory Committee or the WHO scieintific report on diet, physical activity and health. Especially when the adviceshe gives is contrary to the recommendtions emerging from such report and the guidelines issued by professional medical assocaitions. She obviously prefers Gary Taubes and the Weston Price Foundation to scientific reports.

Don’t know if there are studies, but I also (another comment ‘er’) want to know the effects (positive and negative) of grass fed/finished as opposed to ‘organic’. I’ve read that omega 3’s are high in grass fed/finished beef, and that omega 3’s from flax and chia are relatively ineffective.

Dr McDougall talking about oils said that Eskimos die of nose bleeds from too many fish oils.

I listened to that the other day.

Tragically, my friend’s aunt fell and hit her head and was on blood thinners and she is still alive and looking at people, but they all said that she is going to die. This is 100% the end, because of the blood thinners.

I am giving my dog Yunnan Baiyao and it has helped him to not bleed out so far, but it seems like they don’t do anything for human beings except let them die? I did ask if she could take Yunnan Baiyao or anything, because she is awake, but they said, “No, you don’t understand. She has been on blood thinners” and they don’t know that I do understand, because Dr. McDougall said that people die of nose bleeds, but she is in the hospital looking at people and there is nothing they can do is what I don’t understand.

I would be giving my relative Yunnan Baiyao just to make sure it wouldn’t work.

I don’t understand that there is nothing to try.

I am trying everything left and right to heal my dog and they are paying for the funeral and making the arrangements and it is just how it is.

Sounds insane Deb… as far as typical medical care goes, if it’s outside of precisely what they were trained in, then there is “nothing else.” It’s absolutely ridiculous and if things worked the way the way they do now back in the day, we would have never learned or discovered ANYTHING.

Not sure where you read that but the fishing industry and supplement industries are the first things that come to mind! That’s absolutely not true though, ALA is what’s important for heart health and those on a typical westernized diet do not get enough of it. My guess is, if flax oil and things like that weren’t so fragile in extracted form, thus easier to make and sell supplements out of, that we’d be hearing a whole lot more about ALA.

However, all the studies showing that plant omega sources are ineffective in raising plasma EPA/DHA levels appear to have been done in omnivores. The body's ability to synthesise DHA/EPA form ALA sources is believed to be suppressed in omnivores, especially fish eaters. This may expalin why 'vegans' and 'vegetarians' have surprisingly high levels of plasma DHA/EPA.https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1040/4597496

In everything I read about our “lack of ability” to efficiently convert short chain omega-3’s into long chain, it always revolves around fish oil supplementation and comes off more as a scare tactic styled commercial than real information. It’s been really hard for me in the past to find anything outside of the push for us to take fish oil or eat fish or both. I once read something about those supplementing with high amounts of DHA/EPA having lower GLA levels, but couldn’t find anything else on it. It seems the research is severely lacking from my perspective.
I’ve also read in the past that they’re not totally sure how significant high blood levels of DHA/EPA are.

Interesting tidbit, I was recently reading about purslane on pubmed, and was surprised to read there is some amount of EPA as well as DHA in this common weed! I’m not sure how much is found in fish so I couldn’t get an idea of how great or tiny the amount was, but I thought that was pretty cool. And according to the World’s Healtgiest Foods website, there are trace amounts of DHA in quinoa.

Yes, purslane is great. I understand that free range hens eat a lot of purslane and this is why their eggs tend to be higher in omega 3s.

I am undecided on this matter. We don’t really know enough about it. The AHA presidentail advisory of fats and cardiovascular health promotes PUFA use but also note that there have been no trials of diets high in PUFAs versus versus diets high in vegetables, fruits and whole grains.

Also, the 7th Day Adventist Mortality Study found that the lowest mortality risk for both sexes was found for fish eaters (termed pesco-vegetarians in the study) . Among females, fish eaters had the lowest relative risk. In men, it was so-called ‘vegans’ at 72% of the mortality risk of omnivores who were at lowest relative risk but male fish eaters weren’t far behind at 73%.

So, the recommendtion to eat several servings of oily fish a week is consistent with the known science. For ethical and environmental reasons though, I choose not to eat fish but take DHA/EPA plus B12 and a ‘vegan’ multi instead.

Consistent with the 7th Day Adventist findings, but what about all the other science on fish consumption found in “How Not To Die” and throughout this website? And were the non-fish eaters supplementing with B12? Could the fish making up for some kind of a deficiency actually be the factor there? And if it was the extra omega-3’s, I wonder how those who did not consume fish but consumed flax would fare.

My understanding is that the current mainstream advice is to consume oily fish not fish oil supplements because the oil has not been found terribly effective in trials. However, fish also have B12, iodine, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, calcium etc as well as PUFAs and this may be an advantage. It may outweigh the risks/disdvantages of fish comnsumption stemming from pollutant in fish.

In the 7th Day Adventist study, I am pretty sure that they did nit contro for B12 or other supplement consumption..

Most mainstream dietary advice assumes that people do not supplement and alo that micronutrient deficiency is common. That is a major reason, I believe, why it does not recommend a completely vegetarian diet. The latter if not planned carefully may be deficient in eg B12, iodine, zinc etc. Even the World Cancer Research Fund advises people to consume small amoumts of meat despite the WHO/IARC conclusion that it is probably carcinogenic But they also state

This is why I think that mainstream nutrition advice and NutritionFacts dietary recommendations are completely consistent. Both essentially recommend a WFPB diet which may or may not contain small amunts of animal foods. However, where a 100% vegetarian WFPB diet is chosen, careful selection of foods is essential including consumption of B12 fortified foods (or B12 supplementation).

I consider that 2 small servings of oily fish per week in an otherwise 100% vegetarian WFPB diet would still constitute a WFPB diet. However, for ethical and environmental reasons I personally choose not to eat fish (or any other animal food).

Organic meat is a sham anyway. The USDA allows the importation of so-called ‘organic’ meat yet the USDA has so few inspectors of meat producers (especially the ones not in the USA) that it is impossible to even KNOW if you are getting what you are paying for.

Dr. Greger has done some political videos, but this is not one of them that I see.

Not sure if you are accusing him of “cherry picking” or something else, but for that type of accusation, you need to bring a study to the table.

If you can’t find one, then I think the fact he is non-profit, and is open to reading studies when people bring them forward, gotta give him the benefit of the doubt as a respect thing. I don’t expect him to be perfect, and I do suspect that he does have things like “environmental” reasons to also want people to not eat meat, but I found this a balanced video.

Probably the high demand on the body for acid to digest it over 3 weeks in your gut and the toxic load, putrescenes, cadaverines, endotoxins etc. not to mention aromatases,amlylases. ( highly carcenogenic ) when people carameliise, fry, BBQ their meat are the main culprits for cancer ?

I ended up watching a few healing Cancer with Kangen Water testimonials tonight and they kept mentioning a diet and I pondered what the diet was and it was 80% mostly vegetables and some fruits and 20% animal products. Still higher than what Dr. Fuhrman and T. Colin Campbell say causes Cancer to increase. (and Tom, yes, Caseine and it doesn’t translate to human studies) but I am about to take my dog off of the alkaline water. He has been on antibiotics during this time, so I haven’t been afraid of overgrowth of anything, but I don’t think he needs it anymore. He is not on animal products. I think that part is finished.

The tumor of the mice on plain drinking water getting double the size is why I went alkaline, but I am not sure if it is harming his stomach acids or not.

I can say that his bowel movements doubled in size since I started increasing his enzyme intake and switched to Amla as my apoptosis agent. Not sure why, but he is having the 2 pound type of bowel movements every time now and he has been vegan for a month, so I don’t know what changed.

He looks tired today, and it is harder for him to get up from the floor, so I am holding my breath, but I am not backing up.

Well, I can say that since I went 100% vegetarian I have bulked up in the bowel movement department and occasionally clogged a toilet or two – to the extent of requiring many buckets of water to unclog them. So, I am not at all surprised that your dog is doing the same thing on his new diet!

He has been having much bigger bowel movements the whole time, since going vegan, but the Amla and enzymes doubled them.

Amla has a laxative property, but it isn’t loose stools. It is a lot of material coming out.

I think he might have been detoxing or something. He looked a little miserable yesterday.

But today is a good day.

I was thinking about it and that dissolving tumor has to come out of his body.

I am adding Beta Glucan supplements in. He has been on Nutritional Yeast and he gets Beta Glucan in his Mushroom caps, but I understand the dosage better for the actual supplements.

In one study, Beta Glucan shrunk 50% of the tumors by 80%.

Seems like many of the things tested work, because they have Beta Glucan in them.

I am laughing, because I know that my vet said one or two weeks at the most, so I have been ramping up.

Next week might be me bringing back the Turmeric and ramping up to Triphala and Beta Glucan and Dandelion Root Extract on top of everything else.

I feel like I have the highest Anti-angiogenesis and Apoptosis agents possible and that I have enough heavy hitters that I haven’t turned to B-17 or Essiac Tea, but I have those as the last of the last things. I don’t suspect Essiac Tea does very much and a few as 5 Apricot Kernels caused cyanide poisoning in children.

Tom, that link helped me so much. People are giving their dogs 20 kernels and kids end up in the ER at 5.

Mentally, it caused me to also look at the bigger picture of cyanide, because there is cyanide in Flax and in B-12, so I suddenly understand that it wouldn’t be difficult to raise things too high for a dog.

People might get away with taking Apricot Kernels for years, but if suddenly they also start doing high doses Cyano, plus Flax, plus, everything else with cyanide in it, they might not keep track of it well enough and tilt into toxic.

TG crowed, “Well, I can say that since I went 100% vegetarian I have bulked up in the bowel movement department and occasionally clogged a toilet or two – to the extent of requiring many buckets of water to unclog them.”

Dr. (Poop) Oz would be utterly fascinated by your comment. He, of course, would want you to describe the shapes, color, and all those other slimy details. .

Off-topic but interesting I think – I see that the British National Health Service is no longer going to fund certain common surgical procedures because of a lack of evidence for their effectiveness

‘four procedures will be funded only in exceptional circumstances, because of a lack of evidence for their effectiveness: injections for non-specific low back pain without sciatica; knee arthroscopy for patients with osteoarthritis; dilatation and curettage for heavy menstrual bleeding in women; and surgery for snoring.

A further 13 procedures (see box), including breast reduction, varicose vein surgery, removal of benign skin lesions, and tonsillectomy, will be performed on the NHS only when specific clinical criteria are met.’

I just skimmed the article for now — yes, interesting. I wonder what Dr. (Potato Man) McD. would say about this:

“In the same cohorts, higher intake of baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes and French fries was independently associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.66 Thus, the health effects of potatoes more closely resemble those of refined grains than those of other vegetables.”

I just clicked on the link Tom posted and I am going to quote it from a sentence before, because Dr. McDougall is having people lose up to 500 pounds eating potatoes and these people are associating it with weight gain.

“In three cohorts of US men and women, increased intake of potatoes was associated with greater weight gain 64 and higher risk of type 2 diabetes, even after adjustment for body mass index and other diabetes risk factors.65 In the same cohorts, higher intake of baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes and French fries was independently associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.66 Thus, the health effects of potatoes more closely resemble those of refined grains than those of other vegetables.”

Yes Deb but I think that in the English-speaking countries people eat boiled or mashed potatoes with lashings of butter and salt. High butter (ie staurated fat) and salt consumption both increase hypertension risk.

TG, the article looks interesting (I’ve read parts) — but to me this section was the most interesting: “Competing interests” (just after the footnotes). You can’t help but wonder how the funding sources and book royalties affect perceptions, data interpretation, and conclusions.

God point but my understanding is that it does broadly reflect the science. I am not sure abut the boiled potato thing – I wonder if that study was confounded by people’s habits of eating boiled/mashed potato with butter and salt.

Many are vegan in diet for health reasons. So it may be of interest to them.

The idea one has to be vegan in ideology to be vegan in diet is not a valid one for I would guess millions.
Dr Greger is always espousing a whole foods plant based diet not a vegan diet.

It must be studied as well, as this is a common refute found in discussion of vegan as opposed to meat eating…..but organic is perfectly safe and good is stated.
So is it?
And his information on foods beneficial affects may be of interest to meat eaters as well as vegans.
Flax added to meals for example will likely help the BP of vegans and meat eaters.

you know ron, i tell many there are 2 sides to every coin. the reason i do that is to gently and gradually
and eventually educate them regarding the fact there are really “3 sides” to every coin. most act in
strangeness & even disbelief.
now then, flax. you say, for example, it will help bp, etc. but what about the other 2 sides? we live in a
world where people seemingly cannot acquiesce because they want to believe the myths they’ve learned
over the years. yeah, i know, how could flax be bad. it is scientific. how funny!
i mean, who really cares what the other guy eats or believes?
have you ever won a political argument?

Have I ever won a political argument….many. My projections are always invariably correct. I state how things are how they will be and they become that.
So I win. Is there admission of that….no. Winning is not the thing for most, it is the admission they seek. In formal debate a opponent has not to concede to loose, in fact that never occurs…the arguments are weighed and a vote on validity usually provides a win or loss.
In the real politic, a prediction, this will result in that, is the proof of a win.
Admission is irrelevant. If I want to get attention to it I merely cite the prediction and show its proof.

I don’t care what other eat not a bit. But for one or other to come to this site and spout untruths I may respond. All the truth or untruth of these things
are found in the science to support or deny it.
Why peoples feel obsessed to come to this site and spout off on contrary(usually unsupported) view is beyond me. Seems there
are plenty of boards to support any view..why not there then…to bring us to the light…..this I think is nutrition not religion.

Paula, when you say “safer to buy organic” that really is a question of relative safety. NutritionFacts.org has videos on hormones and antibiotics.
One of our especially knowledgeable volunteers responded to a similar question a while back and her comments seem appropriate. Hope these help:

The summary answer is that while these products may be “marginally” healthier, they are not significantly healthier. How do we know that? Because many of the reasons why these products are healthy would apply to the product regardless of its source. While an organic or wild or grass fed product may have less say saturated fat, they still have plenty of saturated fat– enough to matter. All of these animal products are still going to have saturated fat, cholesterol, animal protein, TMAO, contaminants, etc. All of these products are going to be lacking fiber and vital phytonutrients, including precious few antioxidants. http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/antioxidant-power- of-plant- foods-versus-animal- foods/ The following NutritionFacts overviews gets you started on this topic and you will see that most if not all of these mechanisms apply to the product regardless of it’s source: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/meat/ and http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/igf-1/ and http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/endotoxemia/ Here’s a quote from moderator Rami: “Looking at meat and dairy, they still contain trans fats which the recommended daily allowance is at 0: http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/good-great- bad-killer- fats/ Dairy blocks the phytonutrients of plant foods, http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/nutrient-blocking- effects-of- dairy/ Looking at chicken, its fat to protein ratio is abominable http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/does-eating- obesity-cause-obesity/ Fish protein itself shortens lifespan by 6 years by cutting down our telomeres. http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/research-into- reversing-aging/ What do animal products have in common? They promote cancer due to raised IGF-1 levels, promote heart disease, autoimmune disease, dementia, etc.. What can stop the progression and in most cases reverse these diseases? Plants, not meat. It seems clear based on all of the evidence that plant food, all around, is much healthier than meat, organic or not.” NutritionFacts does have some videos that directly address your question. For example, here is a video on organic salmon: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem- with-organic- salmon/ Note that while organic was better, it’s still got plenty of contaminants. “The differences were really marginal…” Here is a video showing arsenic in organic chicken: http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/arsenic-in- chicken/ Regarding the issue of grass-fed beef: In Uruguay for example where all beef comes from grass-fed animals, the more beef eaten, the higher the rates of cancer. https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/09/08/
Safer to buy organic? Possibly, but safer to steer away from meat, organic or not.

Hello Herb Smith, welcome to NF.org community and many thanks for your comments.

Experimental and laboratory studies have shown some benefits of organic foods, apparently, they are healthier because they reduce the exposure to pesticide residues. Regarding the nutritional content, like vitamins and minerals, there’s not any significant difference between organic vs non-organic. However, organics can have higher levels of polyphenols and a higher antioxidant activity.

Check these videos by Dr. Greger, I’m sure you’re going to find them very useful

I’m a general practitioner from germany and a grat fan of your site. last weekend I spent on a training to become a “diet doc” and it was sometimes quit hard tio stand what was taught there.
For example they showed th study by MICHA R et al circulation 2010 and claimed that meat wasnt all that bad after all.
Furthermore they said that dietary cholestarol has no impact on blood cholesterol levels.

I’d love to send them some studies to proove the opposite but i dont have such a good overview and easily get lost in the depth of pubmed.
So coul you provide me the 3 most powerful studies prooving that red native meat and processed meat are a threat to helat? And maybe also with the cholesterol?

It would have been nice to hear some sort of baseline numbers for what’s considered “dangerous” levels of these carcinogens. In other words. did a plant-based diet lead to a small fraction of a 2% risk, or of a 20% risk?